The Universal Intellectual Standards

Making sense of, analyzing, and applying them to the reasoning of an author
Clarity. Clarity is a gateway intellectual standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine its
accuracy or relevance. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it (except that it is unclear) because we do not know
what the author or the statement is saying.
Ask yourself: Has the writers point been made clear? How clear? Did the author provide you with an illustration or
with some examples in order to convey clarity on the subject or their point of view?
Accuracy. A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in Most creatures with a spine weigh more than
300 pounds. Accuracy is the second most important intellectual standard.
Ask yourself: Are the authors statements accurate? How could you check them? How could you find out whether
or not they are accurate? What evidence does the author use to support the validity of their [critical & clinical]
thinking?
Precision. A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in The solution in the beaker is
hot. (We dont know how hot it is.)
Ask yourself: Does the author provide enough details? Should they have been more specific or precise?
Relevance. A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question or issue. If a
person who believes in astrology defends his/her view by saying, Many intelligent people believe in astrology,
their defense would be clear, accurate, and sufficiently precise, but irrelevant to clinical reasoning.
Ask yourself: How is this connected to the question? How relevant is the authors statement to the issue, being
discussed or explored?
Depth. A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, it lacks depth).
Ask yourself: How does the author address the complexities in question? Is the author taking into account the
problem in question, in an in-depth fashion? Are they dealing with the most significant factors?
Breadth. A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant and deep, but lack breadth, i.e. as in
a well-reasoned argument from either of two conflicting theories which ignores insights into the conflicting theory.
Ask yourself: Does the author need to consider another point of view? Is there another way of looking at this
question? If so, what would this other point of view look like from the point of view of a conflicting theory,
hypothesis, or conceptual scheme?
Logic. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of
thoughts is mutually supporting and makes sense in combination, the thinking is logical. When the combination is
not mutually supporting, or is contradictory in some sense or does not make sense, the combination is not
logical. In clinical reasoning, new conceptual schemes usually become working hypotheses when we deduce from
them logical consequences, which can be tested by experiment. If many of such consequences are shown to be true,
the theory and then the hypotheses implied may then be accepted as true.
Ask yourself: Does this really make sense? Is this consistent with what we know about this issue or problem?
Significance. When dealing with a complex issue it is essential to consider relevant variables. But,
some are more relevant than others. The most significant variables should be considered first while secondary
relevant variables come next in a defined order of importance.
Ask yourself: Is this the most important problem or issue to consider? Is this a central idea to be focusing on (at this
time)? Which of the authors facts or claims are the most important?
Fairness. We naturally think from our own perspective or from a point of view which tends to privilege
our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to ones own feelings,
interests, or perspectiveunless of course that is the purpose of the authors writing. It is important to keep the
standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to
see things we do not want to see, or give something up that we want to hold, e.g. a belief, bias, or judgment.
Ask yourself: Does the author have a vested interest in the issue? Do YOU have a vested interest in the issue? Does
the author represent the viewpoints of others in a way that is fair and balanced? Does the author represent the issue
in a way that is fair and balanced?